In a statement released today - the 72nd wedding anniversary of the Queen and Prince Philip - the Duke of York said it had "become clear" to him that "my former association with Jeffrey Epstein has become a major disruption to my family's work."Considering Epstein's contacts, his masses of unexplained wealth as well as the cover up of his death, it's highly likely that Prince Andrew and his criminal perversions are just the tip of the iceberg:
Her Majesty is said to have approved the extraordinary statement.
"I continue to unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein.
"His suicide has left many unanswered questions, particularly for his victims, and I deeply sympathise with everyone who has been affected and wants some form of closure.
The Queen has been snapped leaving Buckingham Palace in the last hour, after approving her second son's statement.His announcement comes as the fall-out from his Newsnight interview continues.
The Queen approved the statement from Andrew
ITV Royal correspondent Chris Ship notes how Prince Andrew's statement about his friendship with Epstein differs from comments made in the interview.
He told Emily Maitlis on Saturday that he did not regret his friendship with Epstein because of "'the opportunities I was given to learn" from him about trade and business.
But in his statement he now he talks of continuing "unequivocally regret my ill-judged association with Jeffrey Epstein".
On Monday it was reported that Andrew "regrets not expressing sympathy" for the victims of Epstein during the car-crash interview on Saturday night.
The Duke of York said he has "great sympathy" for the victims of the billionaire paedophile.
So great he forgot to mention it.
The Prince suggested it hadn't seemed necessary to vocalise his sympathy for those abused by Epstein, according to the report by Mail Online.
"I regret that I didn't make it clear in the interview that I have great sympathy for anyone who was abused by Jeffrey Epstein," he reportedly told friends yesterday.
"When I said I was shocked I thought that was implicit. In 2010 none of us had any idea of the extent of his wrongdoing."
Considering the Royals communication with the UK's secret services, how is it possible that they are unaware of the numerous criminals that they have contacts with?
However that appears to contradict another report in the Sun which claims a 'close friend' said the Duke told the Queen at church on Sunday 'it's all been a great success'.
The Duke is said to "deeply" regret his friendship with the financier, a source told the Mail, though he said the opposite in the 45 minute interview and actually praised the "opportunities" the relationship gave him.
"As a father, he totally condemns any exploitation of vulnerable young women," the source is quoted as saying.
The Prince has received the anonymous support from his friends the day after the interview aired.
For some, he appeared less than conciliatory during the BBC Newsnight special.
At one point he described his relationship with Epstein as "seriously beneficial" because it gave him the opportunity to meet people and help prepare for a future role as a trade envoy.
The comment led Green Party co-leader Sian Berry to suggest he was "not a very empathetic interview"
The politician said: "The Me Too movement, it's thrown up so many incidents of women being exploited and abused by men in positions of power and when there are allegations like this they do need answering no matter who someone is."
Not just women, men and children too: UK 'Establishment': Unmasking psychopathic faces - Pedophilia and murder in VERY high places
She added: "It wasn't a very empathetic interview, if that's an okay thing to say, with the victims, and I think he should have been more apologetic..."
Catherine Mayer, founder of the Women's Equality Party, to say he was "too stupid to even pretend concern for his victims."
The Duke denied he slept with Virginia Giuffre on three separate occasions, twice while she was underage, as she alleged while under oath.
Anna Rothwell, from criminal law firm Corker Binning, questioned how sensible it was for Andrew to give the interview from a legal perspective.
She said: "Prince Andrew is not entitled to any form of immunity by virtue of his position as a member of the Royal family .
"His friendship with the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is under investigation by the FBI and he is vulnerable to extradition.
If only the law applied equally.
"It is therefore very unwise for the prince to give any account to the media, especially one which so starkly exposes the closeness of his relationship with Epstein, and again betrays yet another appalling lack of judgment."
Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme the Duke could find himself out of the core royal family, if reports are correct that the monarchy will be slimmed down when Prince Charles becomes king.
She said: "It was a very probing interview he's not used to being questioned in that way and I think he seemed unable to really answer her questions with any conviction.
"I think myself and most other people think that the interview was a mistake.
It was only a mistake if you want the truth to remain concealed.
"I think the Duke of York is very anxious to carry on with the work that he's doing, but of course he's totally smeared by this Epstein business and until that is dealt with I think he's going to find it very hard to carry on as normal.
"He will of course, because that's what people do, but I think it's always going to be in the background."
She went on to say: "I think if there's a slimmed down monarchy I very much feel Andrew won't be a huge part in it."
In October, the Swedish Royal house stripped some of its youngest members of their royal status - slimming down the monarchy in a similar fashion Charles is said to be in favour of in the UK.
The King of Sweden King Carl XVI Gustaf made the move that will see five of his grandchildren lose their HRH status and be removed from the official Royal House.
The two sons of Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia and the three children of Princess Madeleine and Chris O'Neill will no longer have any official royal role.
They will no longer perform any royal duties associated with the Head of State - nor will they be expected to.
And they won't benefit from the taxpayer-funded sum that goes to members of the Royal House.
And yet contacts and status are worth an awful lot, so it's likely they'll go without.
'Echoes of Edward VIII'
Social historian Professor Judith Rowbotham compared the developments to the abdication of Edward VIII.
"I suppose the nearest would be the Duke of Windsor in some way. There are plenty of parallels there," she told the PA news agency.
"I'm far from surprised because the Duke of York was ill-advised to undertake the interview."
But the research professor at the University of Plymouth said Andrew made a wise choice by not drawing the matter out for any longer.
"I don't think it's a monarchy in crisis. Even with a slimmed down monarchy, you have a large royal family, humanly-speaking somebody is always going to do something that gets well and truly disapproved of," she said.
"It could have escalated into a more major crisis if the Duke of York had not done the honourable thing."
Professor Rowbotham suggested the difficulties the royal family, including the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, had faced in 2019 were not as bad as the Queen's annus horribilis of 1992.
This scandal is probably worse than the time the Queen had to announce a fire, a divorce, and a book released by Princess Diana.
"Back in 1992, it was an annus horribilis. This has been a 'few weeks horribilis'," she suggested.
She added that Andrew's decision would be one of personal sadness for the monarch.
"I think it will be a great sadness for the Queen," she said.
This is nonsense, utter rubbish! The 'Russian threat' is an invention of those, who only wants to cash in by exploiting their role as the vanguard of the fight against Russia... It's obvious to everybody; and it's absolutely clear to the leaders of the major European nations.
Three people have died during protests in Bolivia against the self-declared "interim" government that ousted Evo Morales, after violent clashes erupted between the socialist leader's supporters and security forces.
In addition to the three fatalities at a fuel plant on Tuesday, Bolivia's public defender's office said another 30 people had been injured in the skirmishes, but added the exact circumstances of the deaths and injuries remained unclear.
Public Ombudsman Nadia Cruz's office said the deaths were caused by gunshot wounds and called on the "interim" government to withdraw military units from all policing operations in order to reduce the violence.
An Associated Press journalist in the area also reported hearing gunfire near the fuel facility in Senkata, which protesters have tried to block over the last five days in an attempt to shut down operations, as well as seeing a military helicopter flying over the plant.
A doctor on the scene told Ruptly that he tried to save one of the wounded demonstrators, but failed to do so.
"It's a shame to see a comrade die in this way, because he died in my hands. Seeing it was a shot in the heart, how sad to see something like that," the doctor said.
Comment: The Saudi-led coalition spokesman refutes the Houthi claim: See also: